The new awareness derives mainly from the plight of Kiko, a web 2.0 calendar app / company that went under after Google released Google Calendar.

To paraphrase some famous words of Larry Ellison, Google can cut off the oxygen of many startups. Of course, to be fair, Google created a lot of that O2 in the first place.

Here are some areas / companies Google could threaten next:

Real Estate.

Zillow et al. Ever wonder why the only place not using Google Maps for Real Estate is Google? It's an ad business, you know.

Music.

Obviously Apple and Yahoo have this, and Google can't ignore that Music was the spark behind the one site they envy: MySpace.

MMORPG.

That's Second Life and anything with an Avatar in it. Anyone recall that MSFT has bought up Lionhead (xbox RPGs), Rare, and Massive (in-game ads) in the last 6months? Google could build their own and/or buy up a bunch of the top games and shove 'em together..

Social Bookmarking.

Digg. Not that Yahoo has succeeded at this, but it's certainly something that Google could do well. Digg was recently dubbed "The world's slowest site" by Philipp Lenssen. It's funny 'cause it's true. Could Google do it better? (That was rhetorical).

Of course the startups are not defenseless. Their primary advantage is that organizationally, Google is a gangly overgrown teenager, with all of the focus and attention span that implies. And Google ain't getting any smaller or faster.

The bottom part of the ZDnet article has a bunch of quotes from the EFF and EPIC leadership clamoring for some search engine to not keep logs, and general complaints about the ability of web sites to datamine their transaction history.

I don't think it's likely or realistic for a search engine not to keep logs, though maybe AOL could give up on improving user experience, fire ALL of their researchers and outsource all the privacy problems to Google.

Even if Google wanted to, Sarbox regulations require much more mundane business material to be kept for long periods of time, and certainly could apply to web server logs in Google's case. Beyond that, how would Google continue to improve their service, or continue to reduce click fraud if they didn't keep logs?

Here's the simple answer if you're that worried about privacy online: Don't use the Internet. Also, don't use credit cards, don't go to the ATM machine, don't have a driver's license, don't own a home, etc.

I'll be far more worried if the government steps in and decides to tell Google what they can or cannot do with the data they collect. If it happens, it will be more evidence that the tech industry under-spends on lobbying.

Microsoft adCenter has editorial policies that prevent a lot of ads from being shown.

For example, the keyword "[adult video]" can't be bought. At least not by me.

Anyways, it's important to check the reason for rejection - especially when the rejection applies to your AD / KEYWORD combination. If you understand what's not allowed, it makes it easier to write ads the next time.

Like many of the adCenter screens, the Rejection Reason interface is poor - because it only lists 5 rejections at a time (imagine clicking through 600 rejections that way). However, my helpful adCenter QuickLaunch rep, emailed me the following instructions for getting a CSV report listing all rejections at once:

You can get a bulk download of your rejection report by clicking on the Reports tab once you are in adCenter. Once you are in there, please select rejection summary in Report Group, choose a report view and date range. You can then customize the report by clicking on the "Customize this report" link then run report.

For reference, here are some of the reasons Ad/Keyword combinations can be rejected:

Landing page content not relevant

This is MSN lameness, since the landing page was mostly images that were relevant

Forbidden character - Style guidelines

I accidentally typed two exclamation points!!

Too much ad text (keyword parameter use exceeds character limits)

Here's where adCenter's 3 keyword parameters can come in handy - you can fill in a parameter field that's short enough to fit in the ad text

Exclusive content - Content guidelines

This was a trademarked keyword

Site not related to Ad text - Style guidelines

Another mistake by adCenter - the site was very relevant.

Adult content - Content guidelines

Another over-zealous restriction. I think they flagged the abbreviation "sm", as in "Small', but they think it's S&M or something.

Other - please refer to content guideline

Who knows? I couldn't tell which guideline triggered this.

Despite some glitches, and it's inability to handle mostly-image landing pages well,
I actually like this system - giving a reason is something MSN adCenter does better than AdWords (though in general, AdWords is way better to use for big accounts).

TechCrunch (which I maligned a bit yesterday) points out yetanotherinstance where ComScore's data is probably inaccurate. This case revolves around del.icio.us and is disputed by Yahoo.
Hitwise has a better methodology than ComScore and Hitwise jibes better with what Yahoo is saying.
At this point, I'm of the opinion that comScore numbers are a bit below Alexa's in terms of accuracy (i.e. a lack thereof).

Markus Frind jumps in at TechCrunch on the comments - and he strongly concurs: "Comscore is completely worthless, they barely have an install base of 2x alexa."

I think Markus is right up there with Cringley and Scott Adams in the category of most informative & entertaining bloggers.

AOL releases a data set of search queries on their Labs site. The immediate reaction in the blogosphere was an massive outcry of "Privacy violation!". Here's famed blogger Mike Arrington on TechCrunch:

AOL has released very private data about its users without their permission. While the AOL username has been changed to a random ID number, the abilitiy to analyze all searches by a single user will often lead people to easily determine who the user is, and what they are up to. The data includes personal names, addresses, social security numbers and everything else someone might type into a search box.

I think this is a massive over-reaction. Looking at the dataset it's not clear at all that it can be tied to an individual's IP address, much less their name, address, etc.

I'm surprised at the knee-jerk reaction. I think AOL's research team is doing something useful - share data so search can be studied and improved.

I don't see how Arrington's claims make any sense. Arrington's notion that the data will be easily analyzed and can "often lead people to easily determine who the user is" is strange. Certainly it's not easy to tie a query sequence to an individual, nor is it anything that any web site owner couldn't try to do with their web logs.

Could the data have a social security number in it? Of course it could, but what does that mean? Is that a violation of privacy for someone? How many people type their own social security numbers into web search engines... I'll try look for them in the dataset and report back.

In the end, I think the people decrying this type of data have somehow over-defined privacy to mean something rather imaginative and non-sensical.

At one time, Internet users without AOL had little choice in general-interest content, or at least a limited way to access it. With AOL, one could find reference materials, news services, magazines, chat rooms, e-mail, gaming, and a wide variety of other content in one spot. The Internet, without that powerful interface, was uncharted territory for most casual users. That changed with the advent of Yahoo!, Google, and other navigational sites. Instead of relying on AOL's slow-loading interface, netsurfers could find their content quickly and reliably, using just a web browser.

Substitute eBay for AOL, and change the services from general web stuff to shopping search, and you can see the Ghost of Christmas future for eBay.

What's happened to AOL doesn't bode well for eBay. eBay is a true Web 1.0 company, with a walled garden around its key services:

Seller / Buyer community

Trust / Reputation scoring

Transaction security (i.e. PayPal)

Now that at least two of those key eBay features are available in a free distributed fashion - one via shopping comparison and independent seller sites, the other via Google Checkout and other payment systems, eBay has only its reputation management as a key differentiating feature.

Just as AOL is losing users to free alternatives, eBay will lose sellers.

In other words, Search has hollowed out eBay's market-making power, and Google Checkout is eliminating it's payment advantage. And it's only a matter of time before a distributed trust system (i.e. "Can I trust this seller? What happens if I want to return the product") eliminates eBay's remaining advantage.

The web 2.0 model is that any site can sell anything and the buyer can find it more easily than they can on eBay. Sellers have more control and flexibility and costs will be lower. Since eBay isn't really an innovation oriented company, I don't know how they can escape the fate of AOL.